Do Trinitarians really know their foundational core doctrines and their impact on their beliefs and others?

[Peterlag]

Well, here's a bit more...

The Old Testament prophecies about the coming Messiah foretold that he would be a human being who would be the offspring of Eve (Genesis 3:15); a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18); a descendant of Judah (Genesis 49:10; a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15); a son of David (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Isaiah 11:1); a king ruling under Yahweh (Psalm 110:1); and a ruler from among the people of Israel (Jeremiah30:21). That explains why the people were all expecting a human Messiah. Psalm 110:1 merits special attention because it's especially clear but has been misunderstood and misrepresented by most English versions that read “The LORD says to my Lord….” The word “LORD” is Yahweh, but many Trinitarian commentators argue that “my Lord” in this verse is the Hebrew word "adonai" that is another name for God, and that would provide proof of the divinity of the Messiah. But the Hebrew text does not use "adonai" but rather "adoni" which is always used in Scripture to describe human masters and lords, but never God.

The Old Testament refers to the Messiah as “one like a son of man” and the phrase “son of man” was a Semitic idiom for a human being and it's used that way throughout the Old Testament. The phrase “son of man” also became a title of the Messiah when Daniel referred to him as “one like a son of man” (Daniel 7:13) and that explains why Jesus called himself “the son of man” many times. The use of the “son of man” in reference to the Messiah is one more piece of evidence that Jesus was fully human and one more reason that people were expecting the Messiah to be human. The New Testament teaches Jesus was a man and Jesus himself said he was “a man who has told you the truth” John 8:40. Jesus was not being disingenuous and hiding his “divine nature” but rather was making a factual statement that reinforced what the Jews were expecting of the Messiah—that he would be a fully human man.

 

[Peterlag]

don't mean to get into your conversation. can God Die? yes, the first death, (which is the death of the FLESH). Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
and that was made possible by being the ECHAD of himself in, in, in, Flesh.

101G.

All things are possible that are available. Making a square circle is not one of them.

 

[101G]

All things are possible that are available. Making a square circle is not one of them.

this is not what 101G asked you, can you please answer the question, #1. "did God die according to the flesh he came in?" yes, or NO.

#2. "Can the First also be the Last in Ordinal designations, yes or no?"

101G

 

[mikesw]

Well, here's a bit more...

The Old Testament prophecies about the coming Messiah foretold that he would be a human being who would be the offspring of Eve (Genesis 3:15); a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18); a descendant of Judah (Genesis 49:10; a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15); a son of David (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Isaiah 11:1); a king ruling under Yahweh (Psalm 110:1); and a ruler from among the people of Israel (Jeremiah30:21). That explains why the people were all expecting a human Messiah. Psalm 110:1 merits special attention because it's especially clear but has been misunderstood and misrepresented by most English versions that read “The LORD says to my Lord….” The word “LORD” is Yahweh, but many Trinitarian commentators argue that “my Lord” in this verse is the Hebrew word "adonai" that is another name for God, and that would provide proof of the divinity of the Messiah. But the Hebrew text does not use "adonai" but rather "adoni" which is always used in Scripture to describe human masters and lords, but never God.

The Old Testament refers to the Messiah as “one like a son of man” and the phrase “son of man” was a Semitic idiom for a human being and it's used that way throughout the Old Testament. The phrase “son of man” also became a title of the Messiah when Daniel referred to him as “one like a son of man” (Daniel 7:13) and that explains why Jesus called himself “the son of man” many times. The use of the “son of man” in reference to the Messiah is one more piece of evidence that Jesus was fully human and one more reason that people were expecting the Messiah to be human. The New Testament teaches Jesus was a man and Jesus himself said he was “a man who has told you the truth” John 8:40. Jesus was not being disingenuous and hiding his “divine nature” but rather was making a factual statement that reinforced what the Jews were expecting of the Messiah—that he would be a fully human man.

God can do more than people expect. That is a principle shared.

I shared this earlier.

Paul's first letter begins with:
Gal 1:1 (ESV) Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers who are with me,

In the whole Galatians letter, Paul has not spoken of Jesus as a man. It seems further that Paul was either uncertain or cautious about referring to Christ Jesus as a man. We even see in a couple verses that Paul roughly denies Jesus as being a man in the sense of being the source of Paul's gospel. This certainly does not represent Paul's whole perspective about Jesus but merely the way Paul saw fit in this letter.

You can see my short explanation of Gal 3:19-20 to see the probable sense that Paul has expressed at minimal a binitarian conception of the Godhead. Paul, as you will recall, avoided using the term "man" to refer to Christ in Galatians. I could also add to the Gal 3:19-20 point that Paul, at minimal, shared the concept of Christ in the Godhead with the Galatians in his early missions since they would have to know the divinity of Christ so they could understand Paul's remark.

As to discussions heading toward the Trinity, you might realize that the first priority on people's minds was to understand Christ's divinity correctly. But the significance of the Holy Spirit was less prominent and more abstract. However, the evidence of the Spirit as the third person eventually came to the table for reconciling.
It tends to be that groups that do not acknowledge the Trinity are ones who are denying certain aspects of God and his work on earth. Unless a better conception of the Godhead is sufficient, this is what we have and accept, despite us wanting to know better about God

 

[Peterlag]

this is not what 101G asked you, can you please answer the question, #1. "did God die according to the flesh he came in?" yes, or NO.

#2. "Can the First also be the Last in Ordinal designations, yes or no?"

101G

I already told you God cannot lie and He cannot die. And concerning number 2... God is the first and last and Jesus is not God.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Do Trinitarians really know their foundational core doctrines and their impact on their beliefs and others?​

Sure we do - there's FATHER GOD, there's Jesus the SON, and there's the Holy Spirit. that's in the Bible. All the rest of the foolishness is only "Theology" - many conflicting version of it.

 

[mikesw]

After some discussion on the Trinity, where I verify the Trinity existence, it cannot be said that scripture shows Jesus just to be a man. Paul in Gal 1:1 specifically says he was appointed as an apostle not by man --
Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

At the same time, we know Paul also can refer to Christ as also a man. I think people who look into trinitarian doctrines have come into decent understanding of scripture and the relevance of trinitarian doctrine for a sound understanding based on what scripture provides us.

 

[Peterlag]

Sure we do - there's FATHER GOD, there's Jesus the SON, and there's the Holy Spirit. that's in the Bible. All the rest of the foolishness is only "Theology" - many conflicting version of it.

You do realize that the words "Father" and "God" are just names right? You are a human that is made up of blood and flesh and all that we know a human is. You are not made up of father, son, uncle, brother, husband etc. Those are just names and not what you are. So here's a question: If God is made up of...

1. Jesus
2. Holy Spirit
3.) What's the third one?

 

[Peterlag]

After some discussion on the Trinity, where I verify the Trinity existence, it cannot be said that scripture shows Jesus just to be a man. Paul in Gal 1:1 specifically says he was appointed as an apostle not by man --
Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

At the same time, we know Paul also can refer to Christ as also a man. I think people who look into trinitarian doctrines have come into decent understanding of scripture and the relevance of trinitarian doctrine for a sound understanding based on what scripture provides us.

By the time we get to Galatians Jesus is no longer a man like the rest of us who like him was born of a woman. Jesus at the time of Galatians is now the resurrected Lord and Christ. God made him to be both Lord and Christ when he raised him out from among the dead.

 

[mikesw]

By the time we get to Galatians Jesus is no longer a man like the rest of us who like him was born of a woman. Jesus at the time of Galatians is now the resurrected Lord and Christ. God made him to be both Lord and Christ when he raised him out from among the dead.

ah. but he is demoted to a man in Rom 5:12-21. What a struggle he has to maintain his status. Too bad you don't have a better imagination. You might then make an actual case for your view. Good try anyhow.

 

[Peterlag]

ah. but he is demoted to a man in Rom 5:12-21. What a struggle he has to maintain his status. Too bad you don't have a better imagination. You might then make an actual case for your view. Good try anyhow.

Good Lord, one would think you guys should understand some of it. Galatians is referring to Christ after he was resurrected. Romans is referring to the work of Jesus before he was resurrected.

 

[mikesw]

Good Lord, one would think you guys should understand some of it. Galatians is referring to Christ after he was resurrected. Romans is referring to the work of Jesus before he was resurrected.

So Rom 5 is supposed to talk about Jesus starting a new creation before being raised from the dead? It figures you would add something so unscriptural. Thanks for solidifying the concept of the Trinitarian godhead.

 

[Peterlag]

So Rom 5 is supposed to talk about Jesus starting a new creation before being raised from the dead? It figures you would add something so unscriptural. Thanks for solidifying the concept of the Trinitarian godhead.

Jesus is not talking in Romans. He was already off the planet by then. Paul is speaking in Romans about what Jesus accomplished when he Jesus was on the earth as a man. And there's no mystery about how God spoke to His prophets in the Old Testament.

 

[mikesw]

Jesus is not talking in Romans. He was already off the planet by then. Paul is speaking in Romans about what Jesus accomplished when he Jesus was on the earth as a man. And there's no mystery about how God spoke to His prophets in the Old Testament.

Perhaps you will write a commentary on Romans and explain how that works.

 

[Peterlag]

Perhaps you will write a commentary on Romans and explain how that works.

I just rewrote a couple of verses for you.

 

[mikesw]

I just rewrote a couple of verses for you.

Sure. You demonstrate how you malign the sense that the Son came incarnate which means he was on earth as a man. Nothing happened by him just being incarnate. He had to die and be resurrected so that resurrection would be through him. Maybe you can study scripture more until you get better oriented. You are just twisting things until the distorted ideas fit your mode of thinking.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

After some discussion on the Trinity, where I verify the Trinity existence, it cannot be said that scripture shows Jesus just to be a man. Paul in Gal 1:1 specifically says he was appointed as an apostle not by man --
Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

Such argument can't be valid to support Christ's deity, because any word, call, or commandment spoken by God through any of his prophets would also be considered coming from God and not from man.

For example, who appointed David as King? God or man? The answer is God... but does this mean that Samuel was God?
Who ordered Israel to build the sanctuary? God or man? The answer is God... but does this mean that Moses was God?

So, what Paul is saying in Galatians 1.1 is that he did become an apostle because he just wanted it, or because he was following the orders of any king, priest, Pharisee, or philosopher.

 

[mikesw]

Such argument can't be valid to support Christ's deity, because any word, call, or commandment spoken by God through any of his prophets would also be considered coming from God and not from man.

For example, who appointed David as King? God or man? The answer is God... but does this mean that Samuel was God?
Who ordered Israel to build the sanctuary? God or man? The answer is God... but does this mean that Moses was God?

So, what Paul is saying in Galatians 1.1 is that he did become an apostle because he just wanted it, or because he was following the orders of any king, priest, Pharisee, or philosopher.

Paul was appointed by God and Christ. The differences from your distortions are many. We see that Paul shares the divinity of Christ in several ways in Galatians 3. This is to speak against your effort to diminish Christ so that you can just make him one among many -- or whatever you do for you unity of faiths message. Paul is not a king like David but instead is made an apostle by a divine King named Jesus. Paul was made an apostle by one whom the Pharisees declared as blasphemers such that their authority on the issue. John 19:7 "The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.” There is no law against just calling God one's religious father and seeing oneself as this religious child. The law hinges on a claim to deity, which usually would be that there is some other god but makes better sense of Christ in the Godhead.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

You do realize that the words "Father" and "God" are just names right? You are a human that is made up of blood and flesh and all that we know a human is. You are not made up of father, son, uncle, brother, husband etc. Those are just names and not what you are. So here's a question: If God is made up of...

1. Jesus
2. Holy Spirit
3.) What's the third one?

Chuckle!!! you already know #3, but since argumentation is your only interest here - "Persons" is the term used for the Trinity because there are three.

Each one is given the title: "Person" since all three demonstrate the characteristics of "Personhood": Awareness, Emotion, personality, etc.
"Person" obviously doesn't really give any information, concerning the totality of God. It's just a convenient "Handle" lacking the ability to go any deeper

Historically there's "God the Father", who's revealed name is "YHVH", YHWH, or Yaohu-Ul depending on your private paradigm about such things.

Then there's the "The WORD", who was miraculously incarnated by means of a Human Mother (Luke 1:35) as a human named JESUS (or Yaohushua, or Yahweh). Biblically, He presently REMAINS in "Glorified Human" Form, since we'll be "Like Him" in that respect when we die physically.

And there's the "Holy Spirit" who has no other revealed name. HE is the "Person" who INDWELLS humans when they are BORN AGAIN as Christians (John 20:22). and He's also the one who COMES UPON humans, giving them Supernatural abilities to be used in ministry (Acts 2: 4).

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Paul was appointed by God and Christ. The differences from your distortions are many. We see that Paul shares the divinity of Christ in several ways in Galatians 3.

Indeed, Paul makes a clear distinction between God and Christ throughout Galatians.
In four occasions, Paul is mentioning Jesus Christ and the Father on the same sentence... and in all four, Paul gives the title of "God" only to the Father, not to Christ.
Let's explore this:

• Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead) (1:1)
• Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (1:3). Here he calls the Father "God", but he does NOT call Jesus Christ "God".
• He [Christ] might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen." (1:4) Here Paul calls again the Father "God", but does not call Christ "God".
• And because you are sons, God has sent forth into our hearts the Spirit of His Son, crying, “Abba, Father!” (4:6) By a third time, Paul calls our Father God, and not to his Son.